So, who called whom?

A Web version of the Times’ story about David Paterson’s actions in connection with his aide’s girlfriend pursuing domestic violence charges said last night that the governor called the woman personally, according to the woman’s lawyer.

Through a spokesman, Mr. Paterson said the call actually took place the day before the scheduled court hearing and maintained that the woman had initiated it. He declined to answer further questions about his role in the matter.

It’s a fairly big distinction: if Paterson initiated the call, it could be construed as pressuring the woman not to pursue the case. Or if, as Paterson’s aides maintain, the woman called the governor, it could be construed that he took the call out of concern that she was the source of rumors that had dogged his administration.

“At this moment I don’t believe that he interfered in an investigation,” said Assemblywoman Susan John, D-Rochester, who introduced Paterson at a campaign rally this weekend. “The Times story has it reported both ways: that the woman called him and that he called her. So at this point there’s no reason for me to believe–either proposition is as likely–there’s no reason for me to believe that the governor interfered.”

For others it didn’t matter: Orange County Democratic Chairman Jonathan Jacobson said Paterson “cannot be defended” and that “in politics, perception is reality.”

Paterson, for his part, wouldn’t get into the distinction during a radio interview this morning. He said he will wait for the results of a probe he has requested from Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.